One for the legal eagles on here

[44hunter45]

Not my area of expertise and am not terribly familiar with the open field doctrine, but a quick search on Westlaw shows that the plaintiffs brought their claims in federal district court first and it was dismissed because (1) the open field doctrine applied precluding the unlawful search claims, and (2) the agents were entitled to qualified immunity as government employees. That decision came out late last year, so I would be surprised if the agents didn't bring a similar motion in state court. Not sure what the statutory scheme is in Tennessee and if that will make a difference.

More substantively, it appears the open field doctrine relies on distinguishing between zones of privacy. There are certain zones in which citizens should expect privacy under the fourth amendment (home, car, etc...), while that expectation should not run to other areas (barn, woods, and even a driveway). Somewhat nuanced but relatively clear that the expectation of privacy doesn't extend much further than one's own home. The USSC affirmed that line of reasoning in a 1986 case in which Dow Chemical brought suit against the EPA for aerial photography of its industrial complex. USSC held that wasn't a "search" for fourth amendment purposes. This should be an interesting case.

As an aside, it appears a large portion of the case law on the open field doctrine is from land owners getting caught growing illicit drugs.

Refresh my memory. Isn't it this "zones" concept the same that can mean you are not protected by the Castle Doctrine if you shoot a trespasser on your property, but outside your home?

 

[JLS]

In Tennessee, state employees performing official duties have "sovereign immunity," so I suspect the COs aren't personally liable for any damages, but perhaps there could be some rule change to disallow this activity.

That’s unlikely to be true. There are still Constitutional limitations.

 

[Jape]

Refresh my memory. Isn't it this "zones" concept the same that can mean you are not protected by the Castle Doctrine if you shoot a trespasser on your property, but outside your home?

Not quite. The castle doctrine means you can protect yourself and family from imminent bodily harm. The way that has been interpreted by most state courts is that if the perpetrator is fleeing or too far away to pose a threat or subdued or anything similar then you cannot use deadly force. It’s a fact intensive inquiry although I wish it were interpreted a bit more liberally.

 

[dgc1963]

I dont know how the law looks at this but if their were cams on my property they would keep falling off the trees and end up in a box some place
that being said I follow the rules the only grey area I have when hunting is I dont look at my watch since I dont wear one, for shooting hours time except for waterfowl but if im in my tree stand and one of the buck on my hit list is getting close and it maybe 5 min past if I can see clear I will let an arrow fly

 

[VikingsGuy]

Seems that the further you go east the more heavy handed the enforcement people get. I'm glad I live where there are still freedoms and old enough to not likely see it change in my remaining years.

As the law relates to trespass generally, I find the further east you go the more relaxed things get. The western states are much less forgiving re: trespass than I am used to here in MN and further east. So, I agree heavy handedness varies by state but how and which direction depends on the topic.

 

[Dougfirtree]

As the law relates to trespass generally, I find the further east you go the more relaxed things get. The western states are much less forgiving re: trespass than I am used to here in MN and further east. So, I agree heavy handedness varies by state but how and which direction depends on the topic.

My experience, as well. Private property seems to border on religion in the west. In New England, there are states where all private property is open to public hunting unless actually posted (and posted well). Vermont and Maine are both examples, I believe.